Here’s the YouTubed news clip of the Marion County Planning Commission decision on the 217 acre subdivision application.

Note my concentrated focus on the camcorder with which I videoed the proceedings. It’s healthy for public officials to know that their deliberations and decisions might appear on the Internet, as is happening with the overly secretive Virginia legislature.

The Statesman-Journal also ran a story on the decision. Which was pretty complicated. We’re still digesting the ramifications of the final Planning Commission motion that was approved 4-3. (Read this previous post to better understand the following).

--five acre minimum lot size is required for the subdivision
--the big 92 acre lot can be reduced to 80 acres, if desired by the developer
--only one house can be built on the 80 (or 92) acre lot
--that leaves up to 137 acres for the subdivision (original 125 acres plus potential 12 acres from the big lot)
--which means a theoretical maximum of 28 homes can be built (137/5 = 27, plus one on the 80 acre lot), though roads and other infrastructure would reduce the available acreage
--any attempt to partition the 28 lots would trigger a hydrogeological study (not review) of the entire property
--a hydrogeological review must be conducted now
--both a conceptual and detailed approval of the application was passed (no additional public hearing required)

Basically, we’re happy. Not ecstatic. Leroy Laack originally wanted to build 80 homes on the property. After his geologist told him there wasn’t enough water, the plan changed to 43 homes. Now it’s down to a maximum of 28.

Better for our neighborhood’s limited groundwater supply. However, the state Water Resources Department says that any further development in the area threatens existing wells. So we wanted the Planning Commission to require a more extensive groundwater study before approving the application.

Measure 37 has created a mess. That was evident last night. The commissioners talked about how this EFU (exclusive farm use) land never was intended to become a subdivision. So when Marion County laid the foundation for its groundwater ordinance, those 217 acres weren’t part of the area that was studied.

People bought property here figuring they could trust in fair and equitable zoning practices. If they built a house adjacent to farmland, they assumed it wouldn’t change into a subdivision without going through an open, deliberate, rational planning process.

Measure 37 took away that assumption. Which is why it needs to be suspended by the legislature and governor until fairness is restored to Oregon’s land use system. We and our neighbors achieved a halfway acceptable outcome yesterday.

But this state can do a lot better than “halfway.” Sign the Fix Measure 37 petition if you haven’t done so already.

"He's not the state climatologist," the governor said. "I never appointed him. I think I would know.”

Apparently Oregon State University’s College of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences gave Taylor this title, because the Oregonian story says that the position of state climatologist was dissolved by the legislature in 1989.

Regardless, Taylor loves to spout off about how humans really aren’t a big factor in causing global warming, an unscientific position that makes him a darling of big oil and conservative organizations like the Heartland Institute, which recently trotted Taylor out as among the serious scientists who are debunking scaremongering about climate change.

Yeah, right. You’d be hard pressed to find a truly serious scientist who doesn’t accept that human caused climate change is happening. Heck, Taylor’s own college admits this on its web site:

Climate change is happening globally and in the Pacific Northwest.
Humans are contributing to global warming and climate change in a measurable way.

Willamette Week ran an expose on Taylor in August 2005. I’d been ranting about the absurdity of Oregon’s climatologist being a global warming denier for several months previous. It’s even more absurd now that we know he isn’t the climatologist.

But Taylor is still up to his old tricks. Just a few days ago (January 26) right-wing talk show host Lars Larson had Taylor as a guest. He introduced Taylor as the “official state climatologist.”

Taylor then proceeded to mangle facts and science. He said that the 1930s was the warmest decade in Oregon, which isn’t true: the 1990s was. He also claimed that 1917-42 saw the most melting of Oregon glaciers. Also not true, according to this Oregonian story.

"It's almost universal that all glaciers are retreating," said Peter Clark, a professor at Oregon State University and an international authority on glaciers. "The signs of retreat are dramatic and accelerating."

If Taylor simply went around speaking as an uninformed individual with views about global warming that aren’t shared by reputable scientists, that wouldn’t be so bad.

However, when he writes a letter to the editor as the state climatologist, passing along the untruth that the 1930s was the warmest decade on record in Oregon, that’s unconscionable.

Willamette Week said that Taylor’s critics call him one of the most dangerous men in Oregon. Could be an overstatement. But human caused global warming is real and deadly serious.

To have someone saying otherwise, who is passing himself off as Oregon’s climatologist, that is dangerous.

[Update: Advance reports of what will be in the soon to be released report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change feature headlines such as "World's scientists say climate change is much worse than they thought." But George Taylor feels that he knows more than the world's experts on climate change, because he continues to claim that humans are having a minimal effect on global warming.

The report supposedly will say: "It is virtually certain that human activity has played the dominant role in causing the increase of greenhouse gases over the past 250 years." But don't worry. George Taylor says it isn't so. And so long as Oregon State University continues to bestow upon him the title of "state climatologist," unfortunately some people are going to believe him.]

I watch KATU’s 11 o’clock news every night. Almost always I record the program and start watching it about twenty minutes in. That’s so I can fast forward through all the stories that are utterly uninteresting to me.

Which means I usually end up seeing about ten minutes out of the thirty-two. Weather, sports, and stories that have some relevance or interest to me—watchable. Murders, car crashes, fires, and the like—skipable.

Last night there was only one story about an important social issue with significant local and national impacts: FreightLiner’s announcement that 800 workers were being laid off in Portland, with many of those jobs going to Mexico. Two serious news minutes out of thirty-two.

Recently my wife and I have been interviewed a couple of times by KATU news’ Salem team. They did an excellent job digging into how a proposed Measure 37 subdivision threatens the groundwater in our area of the south Salem hills. But Melica Johnson’s stories were shown on KATU’s late afternoon news, not at 11 o’clock.

I asked her why the late night news was so filled with crime and fluff. She was sympathetic to my desire for more “real” news and suggested that I contact the powers-that-be at KATU.

Good idea. But it’s going to take hearing from more than one disgruntled viewer to make a difference. Contact the station management at KATU yourself. Tell them they need to start focusing more on issues of broader social significance than car crashes and apartment fires.

Not just because this is the right thing to do. Because viewers like me are fast-forwarding through most of the news (or not watching entirely). I’m a news junkie. I read two daily newspapers. Plus the three major news magazines each week. And watch cable news several times a day, along with perusing quite a few Internet news sources.

But local television news makes me yawn. When there’s hardly any news on the news, there isn’t much reason to watch. Here’s what I mean—a summary of KATU’s 11 o’clock news on Friday, January 26, 2007.
---------------------
What’s going to be on the news tonight: (0:30)
Massive manhunt for two men who tried to commit murder (2:00)
Benson High student tells other kids he was feeling suicidal and had a gun (0:30)
Alcohol may have been involved in head-on crash that critically injured a man (0:30)
FreightLiner announces 2000 layoffs nationally, 800 in Portland (2:00)
Medical examiner trying to identify body found at I-5 rest stop (0:30)
Coast Guard rescues four men on boat that got into trouble on Tillamook Bay bar (1:30)
Firefighters evacuate nursing home after fire breaks out in attic (1:00)
Johnny Brown wanted for shooting two people in leg (0:30)
Thieves are looking for cars warming up in driveways (0:30)
Fugitive hijacks country singer’s (Crystal Gayle) luxury tour bus in Nashville (0:30)
Girl Scout going door to door in Missouri threatened with shotgun (0:30)
Bailiffs in Florida courtroom forced to wrestle man to the ground (0:30)
Still to come and commercials (2:30)
Women’s roller derby back in style in Portland and elsewhere (3:00)
Weather with Rod Hill (3:30)
Seattle house moved via a barge on Lake Washington (0:30)
Still to come and commercials (3:00)
Leonardo DeCaprio storms out of photo shoot in Spain after press boos him (0:30)
Delta Airlines makes editing error on “The Queen” movie (0:30)
Sports with Ron Carlson (3:00)
Still to come and commercials (2:30)
Eight co-workers from Beaverton share $200,000 PowerBall jackpot (0:30)
Jocularity and sign off (0:30)
---------------------
I should mention that this was the second time in two weeks that bailiffs in Florida had to wrestle a man to the ground. Guess that justifies thirty seconds on the Portland, Oregon news.

That was one of three stories on KATU’s “News Across America” segment. The others were the Nashville hijacking of Crystal Gayle’s luxury tour bus and the Girl Scout in Missouri threatened with a shotgun when she knocked on a door.

Could there be any more important news across America? Apparently not, according to KATU. Please, write station management and set them straight.

January 25, 2007

Here’s one of the crucial questions facing a blogger: “Does anyone besides me care about how often I pee?” Well, how will I know unless I blog about it? And, if you don’t care, stop reading.

I suspect, though, that quite a few men of a certain age will find my subject fascinating.

For 50% of men over the age of 50 are said to have an enlarged prostate (90% over 80). In my “Female doctors do it better” post I noted that a prostate exam is the only time you don’t want to hear from a female who is inspecting your genital area that you’re larger than average.

That happened to me about fifteen months ago. At that time I started taking Flomax, a prescription drug that relieves the symptoms of BPH (Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia), which include going often, going urgently, having a weak stream, and frequently waking up at night to go.

All of which described how my 57 year old urinary system was operating. For some inexplicable reason that casts serious doubt on the existence of an intelligent designer, in men the uretha comes out of the bladder and passes through the prostate (which adds fluids to the semen to nourish and protect sperm cells).

When the prostate enlarges due to the effects of the male hormone dihydrotestosterone (DHT), the urethra gets squeezed. And the above-mentioned symptoms appear.

I’d been getting up at least two times a night to go to the bathroom. Recalling my youthful days, that wasn’t at all the case. Sleeping all the way to morning was the rule, not the exception. Then there was the flow thing.

At the athletic club where I work out, I generally use a side by side set of urinals (discreetly separated by a divider). One day I sidled up to pee at the same time as a twenty-something dude. I was struck by the difference in sound between us. One of us was imitating a small waterfall, the other a trickle tube.

You can guess which I was. But now I’m on my way to becoming a gusher again. And a much less frequent visitor to the bathroom, thanks to Avodart.

(Note: I have no financial interest in GlaxoSmithKline, which makes this drug. However, I'd like one. I’m entirely open to accepting cash and/or a free supply of Avodart from GSK if the company wants to express its appreciation for this marvelously positive free blog advertising. Or a Mini-Cooper S convertible, which would entitle GSK to a whole series of Avodart posts and really make me feel younger.)

When I went for my annual physical about three and a half months ago, my doctor told me that my prostate was still “generous.” I didn’t press for details. She said that while Flomax treats symptoms, it doesn’t shrink the prostate. Avodart does, by lowering the level of DHT. I was told that Flomax and Avodart can be taken at the same time, and that Avodart can take six months or so to have an effect.

Well, it seems to be working for me after just a bit over three months. I’m usually getting up to go just once a night now. And the frequency of bathroom trips is considerably less during the day.

Yesterday I peed at the athletic club around 4:30 pm, then went to my Tai Chi class. At 6:15 I drank a large Starbucks latte before beginning my weekly grocery shopping. Got home and took the dog for a walk. Peed again at about 8:00 pm. That’s three and a half hours between bathroom visits, even with a large latte coursing through my bladder.

Much improved from before. So I’m happy with Avodart.

It’s fairly spendy, but insurance is paying half the cost of my prescription. I haven’t noticed any side effects. That’s good, but I would like to experience the side effect of having hair regrow on my bald spot. Avodart is expected to work like Propecia, since it reduces the conversion of testosterone to DHT, one of the causes of hair loss.

I’ll be keeping an eye on the back of my head. Along with paying less attention to toilets.

January 23, 2007

Yawn. It’s almost time for Bush’s 2007 State of the Union address. If there isn’t any paint I can watch drying, maybe I’ll turn on the TV for some lesser excitement.

Through six years of hard work mastering incompetency, Bush has attained the ultimate irrelevant state: not even wrong. When I look at him now, I don’t feel the indignation, anger, and irritation that used to arise from a contemplation of his visage.

He’s become a cartoon character, a “What, me worry?” caricature. Bush is so out of touch with reality there’s little reason to pay attention to anything he says anymore. Just one-third of the promises he made in his 2006 State of the Union speech came to pass.

That was back when Bush had a lot more political capital than he has now. I’ll place my bet on zero percent of his 2007 initiatives becoming anything more than a Bushian fantasy.

Or, irrelevancy. It’s sort of sad to see the president of the United States reduced to such an impotent shadow of a leader that one of his big messages tonight reportedly will be to urge Americans to use 20% less gasoline by 2017.

A big ditto-yawn to Bush’s proposal to tax high-cost employer paid health insurance plans and allow people to deduct the cost of lower-cost plans. (Thanks to Jack Bog's blog for this says-it-all image).

More irrelevancy. The premium for our Blue Cross plan has been going up 10-20% a year, either directly or via increases in our deductible combined with benefit reductions. Wow, thanks George. The 20% or so we’ll be able to save through a tax deduction will be eaten up in a single year of unrestrained escalating health care costs.

With Iraq, unfortunately, Bush has the constitutional ability to put on his commander-in-chief costume and pretend that he knows what he’s doing. He doesn’t, of course, but that won’t matter to all the Americans and Iraqis who are going to die for no good reason because of his escalation of the war.

Thank god, we’ve just got one more year of enduring State of the Union speeches given by a cartoonish, buffoonish president. Praise be, 2009 will come. It will come.

Exactly twelve months ago I felt the need to explain how a compassionate progressive such as myself could be so attracted to a counter-terrorism agent whose interrogation techniques—breaking bones, electric shock, bullet in the knee—wouldn’t pass muster with the ACLU (to put it mildly).

Jack is showing his vulnerable side this season. A few years in a Chinese prison will do that to you, understandably. He’s been seen sobbing into a cell phone, “Tell the president I’m sorry. I can’t do this any more.”

We’re with you, Jack. Most of the American public can’t do this any more either: support the president. Or his Iraq war policies. Or just about anything else the incompetent-in-chief is in favor of.

Jack Bauer knows how to adapt to changing circumstances. He’s grounded in reality, not ideology. That’s why George Bush is no Jack Bauer. They do have in common a fondness for torture, but Jack does it for the right reasons.

Poniewozik accurately captures how “24” is no longer (and, really, has never been) a conservative show.

24’s ideology—Jack Bauerism, if you will—is not so much in between left and right as it is outside them, impatient with A.C.L.U. niceties and Bushian moral absolutes. This season, Bauer allies with Hamri al-Assad, a (putatively) reformed terrorist leader, to stop an attack.

He thus displays a better grasp of realpolitik than has the Bush Administration, which resisted the Iraq Study Group’s recommendation to work with Iran and Syria. A fellow agent asks Bauer if it matters that al-Assad has murdered hundreds of people.

“I don’t know what means anything anymore,” he answers. “The playing field has changed.”

…That may be the biggest lesson of 24 in the Iraq era: don’t stubbornly hang on to your preconceptions when the facts on the ground change. Undoubtedly, Bauer will continue to give liberals and libertarians conniptions before his latest day is over.

But if conservatives and neocons think 24 is working for them, they don’t know Jack.

January 20, 2007

Measure 37 has made a mess of Oregon’s land use laws. That’s undisputed. My state now has a crazily complex patchwork of land use time zones, each governed by a different set of rules based on when the owner acquired the property.

This is no way to run a society. It’s unfair, inefficient, damaging, and divisive. The governor says that we need to fix Measure 37. Legislative leaders say that we need to fix Measure 37.

My wife and I are fully acquainted with the problems Measure 37 is creating. Scroll through this blog’s “Measure 37” category (past this post, which will temporarily head the list) and you’ll see that we know whereof we speak.

So here’s my speaking about how to fix Measure 37. The foundation of my fixing is some simple philosophy: land is sacred, but not in the way extreme property rights activists would have us believe.

Land is sacred—using this term in a broad non-religious sense—because humans can’t exist without it. Water is sacred to fish. Air is sacred to clouds. Space is sacred to stars. But sacredness obviously is not limited to land, water, air, and space.

For every entity in the universe, living or non-living, is part of an interconnected web that allows it to exist and do whatever it is capable of doing. A few days ago I went to a Measure 37 workshop at the Salem Public Library where Mitch Rohse, a land use planner, made this same point.

“Land is not a discrete object,” he said. It’s nature is connectedness. Water flows between legal parcels, both above and below the ground. Ditto with air, wildlife, and the photons that allow me to see what is on my neighbor’s lot, and for him to see what is on mine.

In addition, Rohse pointed out, land is not a product of man. It isn’t created. A religious person would say land is the result of God’s grace. A scientific person, that it is the result of natural processes. Whichever, land clearly isn’t an item that anyone can claim proud ownership of: “This is mine. I made it.”

As Rohse said, you can make a cell phone. You can make a jacket. But you can’t make land. So if there is anything on earth that a person doesn’t have a right to use as he or she wants, this would be land. (See my “Property rights and wrongs,” where I ask if it’d be okay to sell the entire planet).

However, most of us intuitively recognize that there is one use for which land is almost always well suited: the owner should be able to live on it (so long as the living can be done safely without seriously inconveniencing neighbors).

This is how Measure 37 was sold to voters by Oregonians in Action. We heard horror stories of how hard-hearted government bureaucrats were preventing people from building a house on long-held land that wasn’t much good for anything else, including farming. And voters bought it.

As they should have.

I believe that Oregon’s land use laws had indeed gotten overly rigid and needed some loosening up. But not a demolishing. The governor says that fewer than a thousand of the almost 6,500 Measure 37 claims filed to date are asking to build a home on land bought for that purpose years ago.

No, most are like the 217 acre claim adjacent to our neighborhood, where Leroy Laack and his iinvestment partners want to put 43 homes on 125 acres that are officially designated “groundwater limited.”

If Mr. Laack wanted to live on his property, we’d welcome him to the south Salem hills. However, since he wants to take the money and run by dividing his land into small parcels, we most certainly do have a problem with his proposal to turn productive farmland into a subdivision.

Let’s agree, then, that almost always people should be allowed to build a single home on their land. Again, this is what most voters thought they were getting with Measure 37. I’ve got no problem with that. Any Measure 37 fix should allow this to happen.

And that’s about all it should allow. For while I’d agree that there is a “sacred” right to live on one’s land, there is no such right to profit commercially from land. As Mitch Rohse said at the workshop I attended, bare land generally rises in value even when no improvements are made to it.

This is because the increased value comes from the community, not an individual. Rohse noted that we all created the increase in the value of land his family owns in eastern Oregon, for we all maintained a successful society. He called this the “great giving”—wealth given by the community to landowners.

In my quasi-grandiose “Could I become the anti-Measure 37 Dorothy English?” I argued that government actions affect the value of all kinds of investments: stocks, bonds, precious metals, commodities, and so forth. Why should commercial property investors expect special treatment through laws like Measure 37?

Governmental bodies are making decisions all the time that increase or decrease the value of assets held by people. If the Federal Reserve raises interest rates, the price of bonds goes down. Bond traders don’t moan and cry, “Government, reimburse me for the money that I’ve lost because of you.”

Similarly, I told Beth [a newspaper reporter] that both Laurel and I owned limited partnerships in the 1980s (we weren’t married to each other then, but had the same financial planner). They were touted as good investments because of the federal tax code in effect at the time.

Well, they weren’t nearly as good an investment after Congress tinkered with the tax code. As I recall, Oregon’s Mark Hatfield (or Bob Packwood?) was one of the prime movers behind the closing of this tax loophole. Overnight, the monetary benefit we were enjoying from the partnerships fell. A lot, I remember.

Investments rise. Investments fall. That’s the nature of investing. Why should property investments be the exception to this rule? The 217-acre Measure 37 claim next to our neighborhood is a proposed 82 lot subdivision, not a single-family home site.

There’s no reason why the owner of this investment property should be given a special dispensation to harm the limited groundwater supply in our area just because zoning laws changed after he bought the land. Tax laws changed after we bought our partnerships. Nobody compensated us for lost value caused by government action. Why should Leroy Laack and his partners get a free pass?

So this is the other way Measure 37 should be fixed: make a distinction between property held for personal use and investment property. Again, people usually should have the right to live on their land. However, they don’t have a right to roll back land use laws just so they can profit from their land.

Government doesn’t roll back laws for people who have lost money because of a change in a tax or fiscal policy. Neither should government waive Oregon’s land use laws just because the value of a property investment supposedly has been reduced a bit. That’s the way investing works: it’s risky business.

Thus the bottom line on fixing Measure 37 is simple: a landowner should almost always be able to build a house on his or her property. Aside from that, he or she has to abide by the current land use laws.

Get 'er done, governor and legislature. Making such a simple fix shouldn’t take long.

January 17, 2007

Kudos to KATU Channel 2 for devoting about four and a half minutes to coverage of Measure 37 in general, and our neighborhood’s battle against a M-37 subdivision in particular.

Three versions of the story aired on KATU’s early evening news programs last Monday. I uploaded the clips to YouTube, even the ones that didn’t feature me saying anything (Laurel came up with the most quotable remarks, which is only fair, as I got more air time on the previous Channel 2 coverage).

Here are links to the clips (Story #2 is the longest and most complete):

Also, over on Loaded Orygun blogger Carla has a post about us being “Screwed sideways by Measure 37.” Carla talked with Laurel by phone recently and got the scoop on how a 217 acre subdivision threatens to dry up both nearby wells and the springs that feed Spring Lake.

The Marion County Planning Commission was supposed to make a decision on the subdivision yesterday, but the evening meeting was called off because of the weather. It’s been rescheduled for January 30.

Hopefully the Commission won’t let Measure 37 screw our neighborhood, where groundwater problems are already evident—and will only be made worse if 44 additional wells are allowed to be dug without requiring the Measure 37 claimant to demonstrate that there is enough water for his subdivision.

Cohen, a.k.a. Borat, Ali G, and Bruno, is a comedic genius. As evidence, I submit this video of his acceptance speech after he won a Golden Globe award for best actor in a motion picture musical or comedy.

Sure, Cohen almost certainly gave some advance thought to what he was going to say. But he’s speaking spontaneously here, only glancing at the piece of paper he brought up with him when he gets to his “formal” thank you remarks.

The scene he’s talking about, the nude wrestling encounter between Borat and his rotund Kazakstan comrade, is the most gut-splitting bit of movie-making I’ve ever seen. It even had my normally restrained wife laughing out loud in the movie theatre.

Here’s Cohen’s Golden Globe appearance: [Note: the YouTube video I originally linked was removed at the request of Dick Clark Productions. This is ridiculous. Broadcast over the public airwaves, the producer of the Golden Globes should be happy to get more air time. Here's another version. If this gets deleted also, search on YouTube for another video. Hopefully copyright holders will get the message that they can't censor the public airwaves.]

Here’s a hugely entertaining video, in the best “glad that wasn’t me” sense, of cars sliding down an ice-covered street yesterday in Portland’s Goose Hollow neighborhood. (Thanks to Blue Oregon for the link from Seattle’s KING-5).

Videos like this should put to rest the fiction that Oregonians are snow weenies. True, on the west side of the Cascades we usually get snowfalls that would be greeted with a yawn in Chicago, Minneapolis, or Denver.

But there’s a big difference in slipperiness between cold dry snow and snow that falls around the freezing mark—especially when freezing rain precedes the white stuff. Plus, we’ve got hills here.

Combine ice with a sloping street, add a car, and you’ve got a recipe for disaster, no matter how good a driver you are. (Interestingly, though, the last car shown in the video navigates a turn just fine. It looks like a high-end BMW to me. Sophisticated traction control and snow tires makes a big difference on ice.)

When I say “if nothing else,” I’m pointing toward the disturbing possibility that the Marion County Planning Commission might approve the subdivision application tomorrow night without requiring a study of how much groundwater actually is available in the area.

Last Friday we sent a letter to 92 of our neighbors, updating them on what’s going on with the Keep Our Water Safe (KOWS) committee that Laurel chairs. We said:

Even the applicant’s hydrogeologist, Malia Kupillas, has testified that more information is needed about water availability, usage, and problems in this area before the development moves forward. So it seems unthinkable that the Planning Commission would ignore the recommendations of both the applicant, Leroy Laack, and the opposition, which includes the KOWS committee.

But the unthinkable can happen if a government body fails to carefully think through a problem. All we and our neighbors are asking is that approval of the 43-lot subdivision (which could be as large as 80 lots) be held up until a hydrogeological study proves that there is adequate water to support 43 more wells.

People already living here shouldn’t have their wells go dry because of poor planning. Nor should the creek that feeds Spring Lake, which has senior rights to the water that flows off of the proposed subdivision. Leroy Laack, the Measure 37 claimant, has waited thirty years to develop his property. It won’t hurt him to wait three more months so a study can be conducted.

Especially when the only evidence of groundwater adequacy the Marion County Planning Commission has so far is based on “fuzzy math.” This well-deserved term was heard frequently during the first hearing on the Laack subdivision. Even from some of the commissioners.

The Salem KATU (Portland Channel 2) news team came out today to interview Laurel and me again. (The story reportedly will run on the 5 o’clock news). Before Melica Johnson and her cameraman arrived, I grabbed a paper plate and made a video-friendly depiction of the fuzzy math.

Unfortunately, it probably wasn’t friendly enough to make it on air, notwithstanding my intense effort to print as legibly as possible. Since I spent all of, um, a couple of minutes on this graphic arts beauty, I’ll blog my explanation of the plate.

The red line divides two aquifers on the 217 acre property. Laack has made a 92 acre marine sediment aquifer parcel into one lot. The other 125 acre basalt aquifer parcel is proposed to have 42 lots, with 42 wells.

This subdivision is in a groundwater limited SGO (sensitive groundwater overlay) zone where five acres is considered necessary to support one well. Divide 217 acres by 43 wells, and you’ll see that the average lot size of the Laack subdivision is 5.05 acres.

So Marion County might allow Laack and his co-owners to scoot through the requirements of the groundwater ordinance because the average lot in the proposed subdivision is larger than five acres.

Fuzzy math! Because the average is based on one big 92 acre lot and 42 small lots, which average three acres in size. Fuzzy math! Because the water under the single large lot is in a different aquifer from the small lots, so even though Laack may have passed a legality, his subdivision isn’t in accord with groundwater reality.

Those 42 wells are going to be built on acreages of mostly two to three acres. A well on anything less than five acres in an SGO zone is supposed to raise a red flag. But the Measure 37 claimant is trying to play games with the county groundwater ordinance.

Problem is, water is real. Simplistic formulas aren’t. That’s why a study of what really is going on with the groundwater in our area is needed before the subdivision is approved, not just a fuzzy math stamp of approval from the Planning Commission.

Tomorrow we’ll find out whether the Commission is more concerned with a non-sensical legality or the hard facts of reality. Hopefully, the latter. When people in our neighborhood turn on their faucets, they want water to come out—not fuzzy math.

January 13, 2007

We forced ourselves to watch Must Love Dogs all the way through last night. If we’d paid for this two-paws-downer I would have felt cheated, but HBO brought this puppy into our television for nothing (extra).

The movie’s Internet dating scenes reminded me of how Laurel and I met, so this aspect of an otherwise forgettable flick kept my eyes open. Back in the ancient days of 1989, online personal ads didn’t exist like they do now. We hooked up the old-fashioned print way, as related in “Thank you, Willamette Week personals.”

Diane Lane and John Cusack first get together in a dog park. Laurel and I met in a Mexican restaurant. She brought her dog in the car, though.

After a pleasant dinner, at which I wore my carefully chosen wildest, coolest, most fashionable newly-single-guy shirt (which Laurel later told me looked disturbingly conservative), I walked her out to the Isuzu Trooper where Tasha, the German Shepherd, was ensconced.

Laurel’s person-to-person ad said that she was seeking a “tallish, slim, sensitive, spiritually aware, educated intelligent male who values nature, dogs, in depth communication, and who also seeks a mate to share the mysteries and pleasures of life.”

I felt good about meeting her criteria (she hadn’t mentioned “stylish dresser”), apart from the values dogs bit. I’d already told Laurel that while cats rather than dogs had been my chosen pet during adulthood, I’d grown up with standard poodles and Skye terriers.

I could sense, though, that being taken out to meet Tasha was a test of sorts. Indeed, there’s nothing like an attractive woman opening up the hatch of her SUV and revealing a scary-looking purebred German Shepherd, whom you’re expected to make instant friends with, to focus your male-mating-mind attention.

I’d enjoyed Laurel’s company. I wanted to see her again. So I figured improving my chances for a second date was worth risking a finger or two. I gingerly extended my hand into the automotive lair. Tasha licked it. I relaxed. I wasn’t home free on Laurel’s “values dogs” prospective mate check-off list, but at least I was in the ballpark.

Not batting very aggressively, however. Having been out of the dating game for eighteen years, I pretty much froze after the dog greeting was over. It was Laurel who said, “The Salem Art Fair is next weekend. Want to go?” “Sure,” I said, happy that I’d been asked out on a second date.

A ways down our relationship road, Laurel told me that she was surprised to hear herself bringing up the Art Fair. For that entailed a significant commitment of time with a guy she’d only known for an hour. Usually long-time single Laurel liked second (and first) dates to be easily escapable.

So she must have been wary when we walked across Bush Park, heading for the fair. We were talking about politics. I said something about being an independent now, after a stint as a registered Democrat. I also must have mentioned that I didn’t always vote a straight Democratic ticket.

Because what I do distinctly remember is Laurel stopping in her tracks, looking me in the eyes, and asking, “You didn’t vote for Reagan, did you? Tell me you didn’t.”

Oops. I couldn’t remember. But the fact that I possibly voted for Reagan, which I had to admit, was reason enough to bring the date to a screeching halt. We sat on top of a picnic table and hashed out my extremely disturbing revelation.

I wished that I’d changed the subject from politics and told Laurel something more acceptable from my past. Like, I’d killed a guy with a knife in a bar fight. Or been convicted of disseminating child pornography. Anything would have been more forgivable than voting for Ronald Reagan.

I can’t recall how I talked my out of this potential relationship-buster. I must have assured Laurel that my voting insanity was a one time thing, and now I was back on the right (meaning, left) side of the political street.

We got married a mere seven months later. I proved to Laurel’s satisfaction that I both loved dogs and hated Reagan. She forgave me for a brief flirtation with a Republican. Love isn’t blind, but sometimes its eyelids need to be lowered when an indiscretion is evident.

January 11, 2007

Here’s what I learned today about taking photos of snow: don’t wait. Especially if you live in Oregon’s Willamette Valley. By the time I roused myself to pick up my camera and venture outside, melting had made an appearance.

You’ll have to trust me. The trees were beautiful. All white, instead of green. I’d compose a haiku in lieu of the missing photos, but I never can remember how many syllables go on each line.

Anyway, there's something else the snow told me. You can’t stop things from changing. Snow, or anything else. But you can get on board the Change Express and chug along with the present.

So after grieving for a minute or two at my failure to capture the maxi-snow, I seized the moment to photograph the mini remainder.

January 09, 2007

Sunday Laurel and I finished watching Memoirs of a Geisha. Then the next day my Tai Chi instructor, Warren, who’d just returned from several weeks in Japan, talked after class about the clubs where women are served (in various ways) by male hosts.

Warren thought I’d make a great geisha. I agree. There’s the language barrier thing, but Berlitz could get me over that. And I could learn how to say, “Yes, yes, you’re so right” in a flash. Along with, “Another drink, beautiful woman?”

That should cover a lot of the male geisha bases.

I’ve been married for thirty-four years (sequentially to two wives) so doing whatever a woman wants comes naturally to me. Might as well start getting paid for it. A Guardian story says, “Male escort clubs are big business, satisfying the newfound freedom of Japanese women - at a price.”

I read that a good male host can make £50,000 a month, which translates into almost $100,000. Not too shabby. And reportedly the hosts at one upscale club range in age from 20 to 68. I’ve got at least a decade of male geisha’ing in me.

Male geisha (sometimes known as hōkan, more commonly known as taikomochi) gradually began to decline, and by 1800 female geisha (originally known as onna geisha, literally "woman geisha") outnumbered them by three to one, and the term "geisha" came to be understood as referring to skilled female entertainers, as it does today.

Arai was 56 back in 2002, when this photo was taken for a story in the Japan Times. I’ve got more hair than he does, so I’m reassured that my bald spot isn’t a disqualification to become a male geisha.

I’ll keep on with my training. Which for now is marriage.

Almost every night I sit on the floor at the foot of the recliner where my client/wife is enthroned while we watch TV. Her feet wiggle demandingly. I bow to her needs. I take her socks off. I squeeze and massage her feet.

If I stop, she says “More!” I accede. If feet squeezing is part of what it takes to be a male geisha, I’ve got that down. Laurel sometimes says, “I wish we had a foot-massage slave.” I don’t know why she says that.

January 07, 2007

I’ve always been repulsed by the talk of good guys and bad guys in Iraq. The Bush administration, along with conservative pundits, loves to paint the United States as being on the side of the angels.

The “bad guys” are the Iraqi insurgents, Baathists, Al Qaeda fighters, militias—any and all who are resisting the Snow White pure intentions of the “good guys” to bring peace, democracy, and the American way to the middle east.

Abu Ghraib’s torture and prisoner abuse should have put to rest this ridiculous dualism. But it didn’t. Too many Americans have an unfortunate ability to downplay our nation’s faults and exaggerate its virtues.

U.S. Marines gunned down five unarmed Iraqis who stumbled onto the scene of a 2005 roadside bombing in Haditha, Iraq, according to eyewitness accounts that are part of a Naval Criminal Investigative Service report obtained by The Washington Post.

Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich, the squad leader, shot the men one by one after Marines ordered them out of a white taxi in the moments following the explosion, which killed one Marine and injured two others, witnesses told investigators. Another Marine fired into their bodies as they lay on the ground.

…The shootings were the first in a series of violent reactions by Marines on the morning of Nov. 19, 2005, that left 24 civilians - many of them women and children - dead, in what some human rights groups and Iraqis have called a massacre.

I’d like it if “good guy” and “bad guy” disappeared from public discourse. But if these terms are still going to be used, they need to be applied with specificity. Why exactly is this guy good or bad?

American soldiers are on both sides of the good-bad fence. So are Iraqi insurgents, many of whom surely consider that they’re patriots fighting for their country. (To the British, George Washington was a “bad guy.”)

Diane Christian reminds us that if you think you’re good, you’re probably not, just as those who believe they can do no wrong generally commit a lot of it.

Most religious and moral teachings warn against thinking you're good. Call no man good is the counsel. The wisdom is that if you think you're good you're dangerous because you won't acknowledge where you're bad. Contrary to popular appetite, it's not all or nothing, good or bad forever fixed, but separate actions in time. You can be good today and bad tomorrow, bad yesterday and good today. If you're free it's an open option.

The Tao Te Ching tells it like it is:

A truly good man is not aware of his goodness,
And is therefore good.
A foolish man tries to be good,
And is therefore not good.

January 06, 2007

Here’s two YouTubed videos of the Channel 2 news stories yesterday that featured our fight against a nearby subdivision. The first, aired at 4:30, was a brief one minute. The second was on the 5 o’clock news and ran 2:22.

For the benefit of our broadband impaired rural south Salem neighbors, who mostly struggle by with internet dial-up, I reduced the size of the videos considerably (to about 1.2 MB and 2.7 MB). This had the pleasant effect of blurring the picture, thereby taking years off of my visage.

Take a look. Our dog did indeed make it into a shot, just as I hoped for yesterday. You can watch the clips by clicking below, or via YouTube. Shorter story is here and longer story is here.

January 05, 2007

Laurel and I were just interviewed at home by KATU, Portland Channel 2. We talked about the Measure 37 claim adjacent to our neighborhood—how a large proposed subdivision on farmland threatens the right of people already living here to not have their wells go dry.

I’m not usually a praying sort of guy. But I won’t object if you want to pray, “Dear _____, please make sure that KATU doesn’t put on air the close-up of Brian sitting at a table drinking a glass of water. Or at least, that the video is blurred.” (like the photo above; recently got a new camera; still learning how to focus, obviously)

Possible air times today (Friday) are 4:30-6:00, 6:30-7:00, and 11:00. Of course, we might be bumped by a traffic accident, fire, or animal story, these being the main focus of Portland TV news, based on our viewing experience.

I think we sounded moderately coherent. Editing, of course, will reduce us to a few short sound bites. Hopefully our dog will make it into the cut. If so, we’ll be waiting by the phone for offers from Hollywood to have Serena appear as an animal extra (or even lead).

A waterfall on the creek that runs through our property got filmed quite a bit by the cameraman, who thought it was beautiful. We emphasized that the water comes from the aquifer on which the subdivision would be built.

And that Larry Eaton, a hydrogeologist hired by Spring Lake Estates and the Keep Our Water Safe committee (chaired by Laurel) says that the subdivision’s forty three wells could suck dry the springs feeding the creek.

If KATU airs our story I’ll be sure to YouTube it, plus post a link to the Channel 2 archive if it’s viewable there. Even if I’m shown in an unflattering fashion. At first I was worried about whether the cameraman was on my good side during the water drinking scene.

Then I realized that both sides are my gray side, so what’s the difference, really? Anyway, I’m pleased to sacrifice my ego in order to publicize the horror show that Measure 37 has become.

The governor and legislature need to put this travesty of a law on hold until it can be fixed. Click on over to Jim Gilbert’s online petition and ask them to do just that.

January 03, 2007

Well, another day, another front page Salem Statesman-Journal story about our neighborhood’s fight to prevent wells from being sucked dry by a Measure 37 subdivision.

The headline sums it up: “Concerns about water hinder development plan.” Once again (the first hearing was two weeks ago) the Marion County Planning Commission got an earful from nearby property owners as well as consultants hired by the Keep Our Water Safe (KOWS) committee that Laurel chairs.

Much of the testimony was technical and long-winded. The hearing lasted from 8 pm until after 11. But there was a moment when the absurdity of Measure 37, the ill-considered attempt to trash Oregon’s land use laws, came into cogent crystal-clear focus.

Leroy Laack, one of the owners of the 217 farmland acres that are proposed to become a subdivision, sat at the witness table for the first time. He told the commissioners that he’d waited thirty years to have a chance to develop his property (soon after he bought it, SB 100 went into effect and prevented productive farmland like his from being paved over).

“Property rights are the basis of our democracy,” Laack said. I thought, hmmm, I’m not so sure about that. Still, who can argue with such a fine all-American concept like “property rights”? Shouldn’t people be able to do what they want with their own land?

Short answer: no. One of the commissioners asked Laack, “Don’t your property rights stop when they infringe on mine?” Almost instantly Laack answered, “Yes, I agree.”

Honest answer, Mr. Laack. An answer that means your subdivision application should be turned down. Or at least, put on hold until a full hydrogeological study of the aquifer that you intend to tap for your 43 wells is conducted.

Even Laack’s own hydrogeologist, Malia Kupillas, testified that she should complete her assessment of the area’s groundwater capacity, and have it reviewed by an independent hydrogeologist, before the Planning Commission considered giving final approval to the subdivision application.

There simply is too great a risk that existing wells and the creek that feeds Spring Lake will be harmed by the proposed development. Larry Eaton, a hydrogeologist hired by our KOWS committee, discussed his most recent conclusions about the danger 43 new wells would pose to Spring Lake. Here’s his (4MB) memo, for groundwater detail junkies.Download Sp_Lk_Post_Mt_Memo.pdf

The commission also heard from additional neighbors (many others testified at the first hearing) who already have well problems. Plant a subdivision into the aquifer that they’re tapping, and those problems almost certainly will be exacerbated.

Laurel emphasized what Rick Kienle, who established the foundation for Marion County’s groundwater ordinance, told her in emails and a phone conversation: it’s necessary to conduct site-specific studies to find out what really is going on with an area’s water supply.

You can’t plug some numbers into a simplistic formula and claim that there’s enough water to support a subdivision, like Laack and company are trying to do. Kienle says that even if the lots are ten acres in size, a site-specific study still should be conducted.

By the way, ten acres is the minimum lot size if someone currently applies to convert Marion County farmland to housing. By contrast, Laack wants to put most of his homes on two to three acre lots. As a Measure 37 claimant, he feels that he’s entitled to do so. Even if that hurts surrounding property owners.

We’re confident that the Planning Commission will end up making the right decision: to either reject the application or require proof that existing wells and water rights won’t be harmed by the subdivision.

The commission is going to have a work session next Wednesday to discuss Measure 37 legal issues. Then they’ll have a third hearing on the Laack application on January 9.

Leroy Laack tried to play the “I’m 78 years old and just want a chance to do what I planned with my property” card. But I don’t feel a lot of sympathy for him. Hey, life isn’t predictable. Situations change. Land use laws change. Everything changes, if you believe the Buddhists.

He could have profitably farmed his property if he had wanted to, rather than leaving it mostly fallow all these years. A local farmer testified that he tried to lease Laack’s land, but was rebuffed. Laack wants to plant concrete and asphalt, not Christmas trees or grape vines.

The farmer said that the 217 acres Laack wants to make into a subdivision are perfect for a vineyard. Laack and his owners would have made millions of dollars by selling their property to a grape-grower. They still could. I’d buy the first case of wine. That’s a promise.

Lastly, we just received an informative PowerPoint presentation (1MB) by Todd Jarvis on Measure 37 and water issues. Jarvis is on the Water Resources faculty at Oregon State University and involved with the Institute for Water and Watersheds. Take a look.Download aoc_measure37.ppt

January 02, 2007

I had a sinking feeling last night when my Dish network recording of the Boise State-Oklahoma Fiesta Bowl ended with three minutes to go in regulation. Like an idiot, I’d forgotten to extend the “stop” time past the scheduled game end.

That feeling only got worse. On the evening news I saw some highlights of what I’d missed. And heard the KATU sports gal rave about what a great game it was.

Then, this morning I got the newspaper. “Overtime thriller,” “wild finish,” and “one of the most dramatic finishes in BCS history” leapt out at me from the AP Fiesta Bowl story.

Just to drive myself even deeper into despair, I got on the Internet and read an Instant Analysis of the game.

Decades from now, the first BCS bowl game ever broadcast by the FOX television network will likely remain the best. In the immediate aftermath of a breathtaking event, only one thing can be said: the 2007 Fiesta Bowl could be the greatest game in college football's 138-year history.

Great. And I missed the crucial moments of it.

The good news is that partial videos of the game are available online now. Fox Sports has highlights of every quarter, including overtime. Wanting more, I went through the trouble of signing up for iTunes (yeah, I’m one of the last people in the country who doesn’t own an Ipod).

But after finding and purchasing a complete iTunes video of the 2007 Fiesta Bowl, I belatedly realized that (1) only the pre-game player interviews are available for download now and (2) even those were going to suck up a good share of my satellite Internet bandwidth for the month.

So I’m going to wait for a 20-minute short cut of every Fiesta Bowl play to become available. It’s worth $1.99 to me to be able to say that I saw all the plays of the greatest game in college history (though I’m sure this claim is open to debate).

There’s also YouTube, naturally. In 2:33 you can see highlights of the final moments of the fourth quarter and the astounding overtime. Or just click below. Enjoy.

Even if you saw the game, the sleight of hand by Broncos quarterback Jared Zabransky (a Hermiston, Oregon native) on the Statue of Liberty play that won for Boise State is worth watching over and over.

Some of her testimony at a Marion County Planning Commission hearing, where opposition to the development was strong from many property owners who don’t want their wells going dry, was quoted in the story:

“Marion County keeps allowing more development of new properties and new well entitlements in groundwater limited areas, with inadequate studies to determine whether even the current level of development can be sustained,” said Laurel Hines, a homeowner in Spring Lake Estates.

“Now, large numbers of new lots and new wells are being considered for this proposed subdivision on areas zoned only for farmland, where very little information is known about how many wells can be supported without causing harm to existing surface and groundwater rights.”

The statistics on Measure 37, an attempt to get around Oregon’s land use rules, are scary. To date 473 claims have been filed in Marion County covering 26, 781 acres, about 17,000 of which are zoned exclusive farm use.

Soon bulldozers are going to start paving over irreplaceable farm land. That’s why the legislature and governor need to suspend Measure 37 until this horribly flawed law can be fixed.

The Keep Our Water Safe (KOWS) committee that Laurel chairs will be leading the fight against the subdivision at a second Planning Commission hearing tomorrow night. As the headline of another Statesman-Journal story by Casper said, “Dispute about development goes beyond groundwater.”

A herd of KOWSians will provide persuasive reasons why Leroy Laack’s subdivision proposal needs to be turned down or put on hold until a hydrogeological study is conducted of the area’s groundwater. Hopefully the Planning Commission will do the right thing.

It’s aggravating that neighbors have to put so much time, money, and effort into preventing our wells from going dry because an avaricious developer wants to plunk 42 homes on two and three acre lots in an area that has been designated as requiring at least five acres per well.

Laack is quoted as saying that water rights are the same as development rights. He doesn’t see any problem with him making money at the expense of the people who already live here.

Well, I’m with the person who left this comment on the Statesman-Journal web site:

Another greedy, self-centered "neighbor" (and I use the term loosely) only concerned with filling his own pockets; and to hell with anyone & everyone else. Sorry, Laacky old man, but safe, clean drinking water trumps your desire to get rich by destroying the livability & beauty of your neighborhood.

On BlueOregon Jim Gilbert urges us to fix Measure 37. Take a moment and sign a petition asking the legislature to do that. We and our neighbors will be appreciative. Especially when water keeps coming out of our taps.